4
$\begingroup$

Moving the mouse over the arrow says "klick again to undo", but when I try, I get a message that my vote is locked until the answer is edited. Why?

I misread sth., and think the answer actually deserves an upvote.

This makes no sense for me, I think it's a bug. If the idea is to keep people from toggling their vote a million times for their leisure (can't imagine why anyone would want to that, or whom it would hurt), this is a stupid way to keep them from doing so.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Karl, I think it's click ($\text{English} \neq \text{German}$) $\endgroup$ – Buck Thorn Apr 18 at 11:40
  • $\begingroup$ @NightWriter I think you're right. ;-) $\endgroup$ – Karl Apr 18 at 20:07
6
$\begingroup$

There have been (so the legendary mother meta makes us believe) instances where users were gaming the system by down voting every answer other than theirs, and later undid this to get back the down vote penalty.

Within the first five minutes, you can change your vote (almost as often as you wish); then it will be locked until the question/answer gets edited. This is how it is designed, so this is not a bug. The message you get should tell you exactly when you voted on the question/answer.

You can try to improve the post by editing, which will unlock all votes on it. This action should of course be in the spirit of the post. Otherwise there is nothing you can do about it.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (Ah, it works for five minutes. That explains that.) I don't get what someone could gain from this scheme. His own answer looks better by one vote for one day? $\endgroup$ – Karl Apr 14 at 19:49
  • $\begingroup$ @Karl basically yes; it doesn't even have to be a full day. Sometimes an hour or so might do the trick. If I recall correctly, this is somewhat related to "the fastest gun in the West" meme on stack exchange. $\endgroup$ – Martin - マーチン Apr 14 at 20:06
  • $\begingroup$ Help me, what do I get if my answer is better by one vote for some time? Except a fleeting wave of admiration from whomever? ;-) I mean certainly not from a number of disgruntled people, who wrote the other answers, right? $\endgroup$ – Karl Apr 14 at 20:19
  • $\begingroup$ @Karl I'm sorry, but I cannot help you there. Is not in my nature to behave like this, and I have no sympathies for people who do it. In general I have not many sympathies to for people who game the system to their own (questionable) benefit. So if your not doing it, you're one of the people who are intended to be protected from this malicious behaviour. (I also still don't know what I can buy for my imaginary internet points; or what I wanted to buy if I could.) $\endgroup$ – Martin - マーチン Apr 14 at 20:29
  • $\begingroup$ Well, my impression is that with this lock someone has tried to thorougly solve a barely existing problem. But thank you for the explanation. :-) $\endgroup$ – Karl Apr 14 at 20:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Karl Our site is too young to have experienced these problems, but with the rules and limitations in place, you obviously think they wouldn't exist. These things, however, have a real reason to be in place (I invite you to browse through mother meta to find out more), and they actually solved the/a problem. There is enough mischievous behaviour going on here, and as a moderator I hope such interruptions won't be noticed by the users. I personally also only noticed such a lock exists way late into my activity on the platform; I do not regard it as hindering me to interact with the site. $\endgroup$ – Martin - マーチン Apr 14 at 20:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .